Sunday Downtime - All Evolve Media Sites are being migrated to a new data center Sunday Dec 11, 2016. The migration will occur during an 8 AM to 2 PM (Pacific Time) maintenance window. We will have up to 1 hour of downtime for any of our sites.

The History of HockeyRelive great moments in hockey history and discuss how the game has changed over time.

Is Mario Lemieux a bit overrated?

1993 playoffs. Wayne was age 32. There is no way that Datsyuk is EVER remotely close to that level of play. A 28 year old Wayne Gretzky is better then Every other player in history, short of a healthy Mario or Orr.

One might argue Ray Bourque or Nicklas Lidstrom for recent players.

A 28 year-old Gordie Howe, who led the league in goals and points with 44-45-89; ahead of Ted Lindsay's career-high 85 and a peak Jean Beliveau's 84. Beliveau and Maurice Richard tied for second in the league in goals with 33.

I'll take the league goals and points leader who is physical, good defensively, and a capable playmaker over the league assists leader who barely led his team in scoring and was well off of the league scoring lead pace.

A 28 year-old Gordie Howe, who led the league in goals and points with 44-45-89; ahead of Ted Lindsay's career-high 85 and a peak Jean Beliveau's 84. Beliveau and Maurice Richard tied for second in the league in goals with 33.

I'll take the league goals and points leader who is physical, good defensively, and a capable playmaker over the league assists leader who barely led his team in scoring and was well off of the league scoring lead pace.

Nice cherry pick. You just happened to use a year where one of the top 3 or 4 players ever to play the game had the best points year of his entire career, and one of the top 5 points seasons of all time. I'd like to see Gordie Howe compete with that.

And since we're cherry picking, I'll pick 30 year old Gretzky over 28 year old Gretzky any day of the week . After all, he demolished 2nd place that year by over 30 points, and beat his closest teammate by over 70 points, didn't he? (Oh, and let's not forget the best assist season of all time by anyone not named.....oh, that's right, himself.)

My thoughts exactly. Even if, per game, Lemieux was just as good (which I don't think, but whatever), I'm left comparing two guys: one who missed tons of games and even entire seasons where he couldn't help his team, vs one who didn't. Both performed at similar levels, but one did it more each season, and for more seasons. While doing so, he also set every major scoring record ever, won more Hart and Art Ross trophies, and won twice as many championships as the person being compared to him. On a per game bases, sure, they're close. As for who was better over a season, decade, or career? Gretzky in every category.

Despite the fact that Gretzky wins the "total accumulation" offensive race, I choose Lemieux as the better player for the 90s.

Why?

Instead of simply being an elite player from the mid 90s on like Gretzky, Lemieux was still DOMINANT. This is where the "Lemieux>Gretzky" view comes from. Those too young to have seen dominant Gretzky saw Lemieux (the best player in the world) playing a significantly higher level of hockey than they ever saw from Gretzky. Lemieux's mirror was shattered after he returned from retirement, in the same way Gretzky's was; an older, declined Lemieux was still a great player but couldn't dominate like he once did.

It's an argument that happens often; many Wings fans prefer Datsyuk to Fedorov, and there have been many who felt Fedorov was better than Yzerman. The historical truth of the matter is the complete reverse.

Despite the fact that Gretzky wins the "total accumulation" offensive race, I choose Lemieux as the better player for the 90s.

Why?

Instead of simply being an elite player from the mid 90s on like Gretzky, Lemieux was still DOMINANT. This is where the "Lemieux>Gretzky" view comes from. Those too young to have seen dominant Gretzky saw Lemieux (the best player in the world) playing a significantly higher level of hockey than they ever saw from Gretzky. Lemieux's mirror was shattered after he returned from retirement, in the same way Gretzky's was; an older, declined Lemieux was still a great player but couldn't dominate like he once did.

It's an argument that happens often; many Wings fans prefer Datsyuk to Fedorov, and there have been many who felt Fedorov was better than Yzerman. The historical truth of the matter is the complete reverse.

But Lemieux WAS the better player in the 90s. Gretzky was in his 30s, in his decline, 5 years older than Lemieux, and played more hockey since joining the NHL than Lemieux had played in his entire life. I'm not sure I see the point.

My thoughts exactly. Even if, per game, Lemieux was just as good (which I don't think, but whatever), I'm left comparing two guys: one who missed tons of games and even entire seasons where he couldn't help his team, vs one who didn't. Both performed at similar levels, but one did it more each season, and for more seasons. While doing so, he also set every major scoring record ever, won more Hart and Art Ross trophies, and won twice as many championships as the person being compared to him. On a per game bases, sure, they're close. As for who was better over a season, decade, or career? Gretzky in every category.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tazzy19

Nice cherry pick. You just happened to use a year where one of the top 3 or 4 players ever to play the game had the best points year of his entire career, and one of the top 5 points seasons of all time. I'd like to see Gordie Howe compete with that.

And since we're cherry picking, I'll pick 30 year old Gretzky over 28 year old Gretzky any day of the week . After all, he demolished 2nd place that year by over 30 points, and beat his closest teammate by over 70 points, didn't he? (Oh, and let's not forget the best assist season of all time by anyone not named.....oh, that's right, himself.)

But Howe was actually 28 in the season I posted. It would have been simpler to just mention Yzerman's Pearson in 1989, but he wasn't 28 that season. It wasn't Howe's best season but it was one of the two best for both Lindsay and Beliveau. Andy Bathgate also had a very strong season.

I'll take 23 year old Yzerman over 28 year old Gretzky in the same season (for several reasons), but if I'm limited to 28 year old players Howe is definitely above Gretzky.

As for 30 year-olds, Bourque has a pretty strong case with 94 points that year, coming after a year in which he should have won the Hart while not scoring that much. Which would you call his peak year?

But Lemieux WAS the better player in the 90s. Gretzky was in his 30s, in his decline, 5 years older than Lemieux, and played more hockey since joining the NHL than Lemieux had played in his entire life. I'm not sure I see the point.

He said "As for who was better over a season, decade, or career? Gretzky in every category."

Lemieux being the better player than Gretzky in the 90's disproves that statement.

He said "As for who was better over a season, decade, or career? Gretzky in every category."

Lemieux being the better player than Gretzky in the 90's disproves that statement.

He meant "a season, a decade, or career" as in who had the best of each category (as in the best decade of each of their careers). Obviously Gretzky had a better decade (the 80s) than Lemieux ever had (in the 90s or otherwise).

Despite the fact that Gretzky wins the "total accumulation" offensive race, I choose Lemieux as the better player for the 90s.

Why?

Instead of simply being an elite player from the mid 90s on like Gretzky, Lemieux was still DOMINANT. This is where the "Lemieux>Gretzky" view comes from. Those too young to have seen dominant Gretzky saw Lemieux (the best player in the world) playing a significantly higher level of hockey than they ever saw from Gretzky. Lemieux's mirror was shattered after he returned from retirement, in the same way Gretzky's was; an older, declined Lemieux was still a great player but couldn't dominate like he once did.

It's an argument that happens often; many Wings fans prefer Datsyuk to Fedorov, and there have been many who felt Fedorov was better than Yzerman. The historical truth of the matter is the complete reverse.

Yup 90's Mario was better then 90's Gretzky. Mario was dominant and being 5 years younger had taken over being the best in the world. He might have missed time but Mario was sheer domination when he did step on the ice.

Fans that saw a declining Gretzky in New York, or Mario after his 3 and a half year retirement do not understand how great either were at their best.

Also Coffey. He gets treated like he was Marc-Andre Bergeron or something. Because people remember him hanging around in Carolina or something. When he had a first 15 seasons as one of the best defencemen ever... And in Edmonton he was a freak of nature.

Watch the 1987 Canada Cup on DVD. Watch Gretzky... And Mario. Especially Gretzky. Almost everyone on the ice in the 3 game final is a HHOFer or near that caliber. Gretzky is in another world above them. He creates scoring chances every shift. Steals pucks... Is otherworldly. And he is playing vs the best of the Soviets and with a team if Hall of Famers.

If somehow the Oilers had Mario too. And Gretzky was on a line with him. Mario would have got 125 goals and Grekzky like 200 assists. It sounds ridiculous.... But you can see the level Mario and Gretzky were at compared to the others. Even Kurri and Messier and Anderson were not nearly as good as Mario. Mario and Gretzky together in say 1986-1990 would have blown away any records the two had on their own.

Watch the 1987 Canada Cup on DVD. Watch Gretzky... And Mario. Especially Gretzky. Almost everyone on the ice in the 3 game final is a HHOFer or near that caliber. Gretzky is in another world above them. He creates scoring chances every shift. Steals pucks... Is otherworldly. And he is playing vs the best of the Soviets and with a team if Hall of Famers.

And yet Canada won by the narrowest of margins (for Russian fans, insert "Koharsky" here if you want, I'll abstain). That should tell you something about the level of Soviet players, including the much maligned Larionov.

And yet Canada won by the narrowest of margins (for Russian fans, insert "Koharsky" here if you want, I'll abstain). That should tell you something about the level of Soviet players, including the much maligned Larionov.

NYI were definitely a more depth team with huge contributions form 3rd liners, especially in the playoffs and a contrast to the fire wagon hockey that the Oilers played.

But the Oiler's weren't the only team playing wide open hockey. The difference was the Oiler's had Gretzky, the other teams did not. It's that simple.
The '89 Oiler's didn't just suddenly change their style of play overnight. They just didn't have Gretzky any more. Remind me again who the Oiler's lost to in the '89 PO's?

Quote:

The comp is an age comp, which is the only fair way to do these things. Wayne is hands down the forward I want until around his age 28 year. the two 3 year comps between Dats and Wayne (ages 28,29,30 and 31,32,33) I'd want Dats if I was building a team plain and simple.

It's still harder to score goals, especially at even strength, than it is to prevent them period.
The only possible way any GM in their right mind would do what you say is in a Cap world.

Quote:

MAF couldn't stop a beach ball last year

Oh ok, so when it's Crosby, it's ok to blame the goalie but when it's Gretzky, it has nothing to do with the differences between Fuhr and Healy/Hrudey/Fitzpatrick

Quote:

Sid is closer to Dats in the two way department than he is to Wayne, plain and simple.

Yeah in the sense that a 3rd line player is closer to Gretzky offensively than a 4th player is heh

Quote:

Nice mantra to describe two different eras.

As I have said before, different era's require different priorities to succeed in them.

Quote:

It's always nice to see open minds on the subject, do you actually know how Sid's career is going to go? Heck he could even age better than Wayne, I certainly don't know.

As long as someone doesn't mangle Sid's back, he def could age better than Wayne.
The difference however is that by the same age as Crosby is now...

And yet Canada won by the narrowest of margins (for Russian fans, insert "Koharsky" here if you want, I'll abstain). That should tell you something about the level of Soviet players, including the much maligned Larionov.

Yes, and it also tells you something about how amazing Gretzky was to have played against that amazing Russian team, while on a team of HOFs himself, and then to have been basically THE SOLE REASON Canada won that Canada Cup. 9 points in 3 games against the best team in the world (5 in just one game, which happened to be the "do or die" game of the series for his team). Wow.

Here's something else to consider in the whole Dats vs Gretzky age 28-30 debate...
In 90/91 Gretzky doubled the scoring output of the best player on 11 of the 20 other teams in the League and almost doubled another 3.
Basically only 6 teams in the entire League were capable of icing a player that could do much better than half of Gretzky's production and we're not talking about scrubs here either.

So you'll excuse me if I have a hard time thinking of Dats holding the value of two top line players.
As high a value as his 2-way play is, it's still not the value of two players.
Running the numbers on Mario reveals a similar result.

Here's something else to consider in the whole Dats vs Gretzky age 28-30 debate...
In 90/91 Gretzky doubled the scoring output of the best player on 11 of the 20 other teams in the League and almost doubled another 3.
Basically only 6 teams in the entire League were capable of icing a player that could do much better than half of Gretzky's production and we're not talking about scrubs here either.

So you'll excuse me if I have a hard time thinking of Dats holding the value of two top line players.
As high a value as his 2-way play is, it's still not the value of two players.
Running the numbers on Mario reveals a similar result.

Yes, I have never understood how Datsyuk has snuck into this conversation. A 1991 Gretzky still led the Canada Cup in points despite being injured at the end. He also had more assists than anyone else but Hull had points, and even then it was close. Fine player Datsyuk is, but right now I'd put a current Crosby at about the level of a 1991 Gretzky. There is now way even a prime Datsyuk was as good as Crosby today.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darth Yoda

Yeah but come on man, Malkin is ONE player. Better to go by the field and by doing that Stamkos had almost 50 percent more goals. That is lapping the field. By this i dont mean Stamkos was a better player than Gretzky, but rather i'd like to direct everbody back to that Hockey-Reference link somebody posted with the all-time single season adjusted goals top-list. Gretzky's goal scoring was nothing compared to what those hard number huggers makes it out to be. Same of course, but to a significant smaller degree when it comes to points.

No, Stamkos didn't. He had 10 more goals than the next best. We can't be cherry picking here. The best season Stamkos had he had 20% more goals than his closest competitor. Gretzky's best was 55%. You can adjust until you are blue in the face so that it makes you point but you can't argue the facts here.

you have later addressed the adjusted scoring situation but you don't seem to like it because of the players it affects.

That's a bit of a problem IMO as there is no way around the league scoring average. One player or even one team can't affect it all that much, it's a sign of the times and if we put out prejudices ahead of the actual numbers then it's a problem.

Wayne's skill level is most of the scoring of goals and pints to be sure but it's not like his team situation of trying to simply outscore every other team is the norm for history either.

Add on top of that guys like Denis Maruk hitting 50 (62 his top year) goals 2 times and the league in the 80's was easier to score in, to say otherwise is simply not true. How to measure the 2 things other than Wayne's talent though is very debatable.

Look, this is how I look at it. Judge the guy on a season per season basis. No season is equal. If they are constantly lapping the field then that means something. Look at Brett Hull, in 1991 he had 86 goals. The same players were competing against the same players and the next best was 51. Many could argue that is the best goal scoring season to date. Yes he had Adam Oates, but at the end of the day who won the Hart trophy? St. Louis was 4th in goals for that year. Was it their style, or the fact that Hull and Oates were just that good? Think about it, they all play the same teams more or less.

Quote:

It's too early to tell but his top 10 finishes and % of 2nd place might get him closer than you think career wise.

There is also the point of him competing in the era with the best of the best for his entire career which might be a small point but it will affect every player at some point in their careers (for Stamkos it will be his entire career for Wayne mostly in his 30's)

So who was really missing in the 1980s? Makarov? That's about it. I also think it is highly debatable that he would have even been able to keep up to Bossy from a goals perspective. Plus more importantly who was he beating? He was beating Bossy who was the 2nd best scorer. That matters to me a lot more than your theories. Stamkos beat an often suspended Ovechkin in 2010 by one goal. To me, that doesn't exactly compare with embarassing Bossy. Just saying.

One thing we have to remember here because it seems to get forgotten so much. Gretzky was THE best playmaker to ever play the game, bar none. Sometimes, this is how we remember him as if he was a slug scoring goals. Always remember that in his prime Gretzky scored goals better than anything we had ever seen.

Look, this is how I look at it. Judge the guy on a season per season basis. No season is equal. If they are constantly lapping the field then that means something. Look at Brett Hull, in 1991 he had 86 goals. The same players were competing against the same players and the next best was 51. Many could argue that is the best goal scoring season to date. Yes he had Adam Oates, but at the end of the day who won the Hart trophy? St. Louis was 4th in goals for that year. Was it their style, or the fact that Hull and Oates were just that good? Think about it, they all play the same teams more or less.

Oates was the better and more important player when they were together. But he missed significant time. He was on pace for 150+ points in the over 60 games he played. Outside of the five players who have done it, plus that year for Oates, I'm not sure I can think of another season where a player went 60+ games on pace for 150+ points.

Quote:

So who was really missing in the 1980s? Makarov? That's about it. I also think it is highly debatable that he would have even been able to keep up to Bossy from a goals perspective. Plus more importantly who was he beating? He was beating Bossy who was the 2nd best scorer.

Makarov likely would have been able to produce comparable numbers to Bossy. While Adjusted numbers are not perfect as scoring distribution between top-sixers and bottom-sixers varies greatly through history, Bossy's final season (30 y/o) using HR's adjusted stats comes out to 32 AdjG. Makarov, who was playing in a depth role when he came over at age 31, scored 20 and then followed it up with 27 AdjG at 32. He put up another 27 AdjG at 35. Given normal career arcs, Makarov likely would have competed with and possibly outproduced Bossy based on the eye test and what statistics suggest. Bossy is one of the "lucky greats"; he was a great player, but he basically stepped right into a first-line scoring role on a deep team next to a Hall of Fame and Hart/Art Ross caliber two-way center with a 100-point top-ten all-time defenseman behind them. His prime coincided with the league's highest scoring period era (aside from the WWII years). He was in the perfect spot to break every known goal scoring role. If we eliminate Gretzky and Lemieux, and Bossy remains healthy, NYI keeps winning Cups with a first line featuring LaFontaine/Bossy, and Trottier moves into sort of a "Messier" role on the second line.

Oates was the better and more important player when they were together. But he missed significant time. He was on pace for 150+ points in the over 60 games he played. Outside of the five players who have done it, plus that year for Oates, I'm not sure I can think of another season where a player went 60+ games on pace for 150+ points.

People who were watching them at the time didn't think so.

This fiction that Hull was somehow a product of Oates has to stop.

I see it over and over on the board here. Hull had perhaps the best trigger ever and Oates is one of the best playmakers ever AND they had chemistry together but come on.. they were great players in their own right.

In the 19 games Oates missed that season, Hull scored 18 goals without him.

That being said I am sure both of them would tell you playing together was a highlight for them. They had "it".

Quote:

Makarov likely would have been able to produce comparable numbers to Bossy. While Adjusted numbers are not perfect as scoring distribution between top-sixers and bottom-sixers varies greatly through history, Bossy's final season (30 y/o) using HR's adjusted stats comes out to 32 AdjG. Makarov, who was playing in a depth role when he came over at age 31, scored 20 and then followed it up with 27 AdjG at 32. He put up another 27 AdjG at 35. Given normal career arcs, Makarov likely would have competed with and possibly outproduced Bossy based on the eye test and what statistics suggest. Bossy is one of the "lucky greats"; he was a great player, but he basically stepped right into a first-line scoring role on a deep team next to a Hall of Fame and Hart/Art Ross caliber two-way center with a 100-point top-ten all-time defenseman behind them. His prime coincided with the league's highest scoring period era (aside from the WWII years). He was in the perfect spot to break every known goal scoring role. If we eliminate Gretzky and Lemieux, and Bossy remains healthy, NYI keeps winning Cups with a first line featuring LaFontaine/Bossy, and Trottier moves into sort of a "Messier" role on the second line.

Yes, I have never understood how Datsyuk has snuck into this conversation. A 1991 Gretzky still led the Canada Cup in points despite being injured at the end. He also had more assists than anyone else but Hull had points, and even then it was close. Fine player Datsyuk is, but right now I'd put a current Crosby at about the level of a 1991 Gretzky. There is now way even a prime Datsyuk was as good as Crosby today.

Phil, I guess you could say that if you only look at offensive stats, but seriously Wayne wasn't very good at ESGF/ESGA in 91 and his overall game and impact pales to what Sid's is in 13.

Heck even take Sid's last 4 seasons and compare them to Wayne's 91,90 and it's not even close you take Sid and his game if you want to win games, injuries aside.

The Sid straw man also applies to the Dats comp.

Either you don't have a proper appreciation for Dats game of you are really overvaluing Wayne's impact in 91 and how both players stack up ages 28-30.

Wayne is the greatest player of all time, not for all time, ie his game and impact lowered around the age of 28 pretty plain and simple.

Heck even Hart voters could see that Wayne was still elite in his old age, winning the scoring title in 94 with 130 points and received zero votes for the Hart trophy.

It's pretty obvious that certain people have a hard time distinguishing between the great Wayne, in terms of overall impact (aged 28 and before) and the aging Wayne who was still a great fantasy pick but not so great in building a team to win around in the regular season.

Both Mario and Wayne can get over rated at times, mainly because their tends to be too much focus on their offensive talents and not their entire games.

Their elite offensive skills were useful, especially in younger days and probably more so for Wayne, but Maybe that's team driven a bit, but both of their offensive advantage slipped much earlier than the raw counting stats indicate IMO.

No, Stamkos didn't. He had 10 more goals than the next best. We can't be cherry picking here. The best season Stamkos had he had 20% more goals than his closest competitor. Gretzky's best was 55%. You can adjust until you are blue in the face so that it makes you point but you can't argue the facts here.

But when we're discussing Malkin being a player "just" ten behind Stamkos, where were Malkins equivalent in the eighties when Gretzky scored those goals? Where were Krutov and Makarov?

Phil, I guess you could say that if you only look at offensive stats, but seriously Wayne wasn't very good at ESGF/ESGA in 91 and his overall game and impact pales to what Sid's is in 13.

Heck even take Sid's last 4 seasons and compare them to Wayne's 91,90 and it's not even close you take Sid and his game if you want to win games, injuries aside.

The Sid straw man also applies to the Dats comp.

Either you don't have a proper appreciation for Dats game of you are really overvaluing Wayne's impact in 91 and how both players stack up ages 28-30.

Wayne is the greatest player of all time, not for all time, ie his game and impact lowered around the age of 28 pretty plain and simple.

Heck even Hart voters could see that Wayne was still elite in his old age, winning the scoring title in 94 with 130 points and received zero votes for the Hart trophy.

It's pretty obvious that certain people have a hard time distinguishing between the great Wayne, in terms of overall impact (aged 28 and before) and the aging Wayne who was still a great fantasy pick but not so great in building a team to win around in the regular season.

Both Mario and Wayne can get over rated at times, mainly because their tends to be too much focus on their offensive talents and not their entire games.

Their elite offensive skills were useful, especially in younger days and probably more so for Wayne, but Maybe that's team driven a bit, but both of their offensive advantage slipped much earlier than the raw counting stats indicate IMO.

LA having a terrible season probably didn't help Hart votes, plus that Sergei guy